From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.182.205.232 with SMTP id lj8mr49983824obc.22.1438265265276;
 Thu, 30 Jul 2015 07:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.140.37.48 with SMTP id q45mr650588qgq.34.1438265265249; Thu,
 30 Jul 2015 07:07:45 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!pg9no5351380igb.0!news-out.google.com!b31ni1422qge.0!nntp.google.com!z61no4183144qge.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 07:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <13bslomh3tahk$.62kmnpkj0wge$.dlg@40tude.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=81.203.145.32;
 posting-account=AFCLjAoAAABJAOf_HjgEEEi3ty-lG5m2
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.203.145.32
References: <e610ca1e-4df6-4fbb-b3a1-ac35694d9072@googlegroups.com>
 <mp645u$abo$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <2df4698f-4c8e-457c-822d-209cb2f8ab5e@googlegroups.com>
 <mp8r8l$fnn$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <014427b1-ff7a-4a69-82e6-0330af77ed96@googlegroups.com>
 <mpbd8f$re$1@loke.gir.dk>
 <d5a73210-a67f-4d21-8b16-536af10ab157@googlegroups.com>
 <1438244829.17005.26.camel@obry.net>
 <0a8104af-4ebb-4d82-92e5-6ba7289272ce@googlegroups.com>
 <13bslomh3tahk$.62kmnpkj0wge$.dlg@40tude.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ddd4f6b0-0456-4b19-9a8c-dda0a6b636b0@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Running a preprocessor from GPS?
From: EGarrulo <egarrulo@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 14:07:45 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: number.nntp.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:194518
Date: 2015-07-30T07:07:44-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thursday, July 30, 2015 at 2:23:43 PM UTC+2, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> And how is it different from printf, except that printf has a hard-coded
> order used twice rather than once (once in the format and once in the
> arguments), adding a nice source of run-time errors...

There is a misunderstanding here: I am not saying that "printf"
is perfect.  I am only saying that it provides a convenient
solution to a recurring problem (not in a type-safe way, but
then C *is* unsafe, and while adding some cryptic formatting 
directives).  Thanks to its format string, "printf" lets you see
at a glance what the output will look like.  On the contrary,
solutions in Ada -- that involve more than simple string
concatenation -- tend to obscure what the final result will look
like, and are cumbersome both to write and to read.